The school network billing system is selected, and almost all schools make a score sheet. But many of the scores are designed not to really be filtered but to be biased by suppliers’ presentations and speech belts. The final winning product is not necessarily the one that really fits, but rather the one that shows the best performance and the most beautiful sales words.——Indicators are not set in a reasonable way, weight distribution is uneven and the scoring rules are unclear. The score table is not intended to be an entry point, but to quantify differences in real capabilities between suppliers.
Don't pile up too many indicators. Press it."Yes."and"Add"Layer
Many schools have 40 or 50 indicators in their network billing system, and the vendors look at it and the judges start to score. Too many indicators dilute the core differences. It is reasonable to divide the indicators into two layers: one level is a layer where"Access threshold", direct elimination that can't be achieved, for example"Must support the RADIUS protocol"、"We have to be able to match the campus card."- The other floor is..."Rating indicators"Like, like..."Cost accuracy"、"User group flexibility"、"Log Query Efficiency", each rating is given by 1 to 5 points. Together, the core indicator does not exceed 20 indicators. The more refined the indicator and the more careful it is, the more credible the result.
Weights are assigned to real business priorities.
The weights in the score sheet are not decided by head. The importance of each indicator should be traced back to the operational objectives of the item. For example, the school network billing system was introduced to address the distribution of traffic in dormitories."Time-frame policy"、"Subregional strategy"、"User Group"These weights should be higher. If the main purpose is to solve financial reconciliation problems, then"Accuracy of the billing"、"Reconciliation interface"、"Financial statements"These are the weights. Matching the weight and business objectives is a choice between products that really solve current problems, not those that have the most full function.
Technical indicators are verifiable, not by supplier PPT
Many of the technical indicators in the score sheets are not actually valid in the conference room."Support 5,000 users online at the same time"、"RADIUS Response Time < 50ms"、"Database supports literacy separation"——The number of suppliers is written on PPT, and the judges cannot test it on site. It is more reliable to require a demonstration of the real environment or small-scale testing in the school’s own network environment. The more verifiable the technical indicators are, the more difficult it is for the supplier to brag. If not, at least the supplier will be required to provide empirical cases and contact details for schools of the same type.
Service-type indicators to be specific and avoid"Timely response"That's a stupid word.
The school network billing system is a long-term system, and the quality of after-sale services is vital."Service category"Indicators are often empty words, for example."Timely response"、"Service is in place.". The words do not have quantifiable criteria, and the final score is based on the subjective impression of the jury. Service-type indicators should be refined: downtime response time (hours), attendance time (hours), remote support×These specific indicators distinguish between service capabilities of different vendors.
Cost indicators cannot be based on quotations alone
The real cost of the school network billing system is much more than the initial costs."How much is the offer?"The full cost comparison should include: software licence fees (one-time or year-by-year), hardware procurement, deployment implementation costs, annual maintenance costs, build-up costs, secondary development costs, training fees, spare parts. Listing these items for a total cost of five years would make it clear which programme is more expensive in the long run.
You need to score more people and avoid collusion.
If only one person fills the score sheet, or several judges sit together to discuss it, the end result is often biased by a single individual or some opinion. The norm is that the jury will be independent and give its own scores based on its observations, with each judge eventually losing the lowest average.——The points of the different perspectives are combined to make it easier to run.
After the score, do a remix on site.
After the score, after the supply agreement, there's one more important thing to do.——Each judge records the basis for his own score, where the difference between the winning and the judgement is, why there are gaps, and whether the missing product has been missed. These reflections are of value to the next steps of the school network billing system, second-phase construction, or other information projects. The selection of models can be very difficult to achieve without a clean-up.